The Irreverent Hero Islam Forgot

#221 Posted by akcheema.

Read Ghalib:"Eeman mujhe rokay hai, jo kheenche hai mujhe kufr; Kaaba mere peechhay hai kaleesa mere aagay"

My friend, I suggest you stick to Aziz Mian Qawwal, and leave Ghalib alone.

For instance, read the following and tell me what it means:

Usey kon dekh sakta, keh yagana hai woh yakta,
Jo dui ki bu bhi hoti, tau kaheen doochaar hota.

(Hint: It has something to do with 'Duality', or lack of it)

Re: # 226; tahmed

sorry to come back again; I don't want any potential un-answered questions here.

Read Gill Sahib's articles; there has been one on the Philosophical thought in the Muslim world. Iqbal etc, and many before, there whole objective of "thinking" has been to RE-AFFIRM what is already there; it is NOT ABOUT DISCOVERING/DEVELOPING anything new. Gill Sahib has already explained it very well.

As far as the Qur'an is concerned, a very poorly written, self-contradictory, confusing/confused, bit of rhetoric. I don't get tired of explaining it by quoting none other than the great "Abu Bakr Mohammed bin Zakariya Al-Razi" the great Muslim (?) scientist and philosopher. Goes like so:

"You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Qur'an. You say: "Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one." Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. ... By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: "Produce something like it"?!"

Re: # 225; tahmed,

P.S.: When Stephen Hawking was asked by an interviewer if he believed in God (because of references to THAT word in his books), his answer was that 'If by God you mean the collective forces of the universe, that have been involved right since the Big Bang to the present day, the apparent harmony in nature etc, then yes, but not as defined by religion'. (it is not word for word; from a TV interview I watched)

That, my friend is the God of the Philosophers/Scientists (e.g., Einstein) etc and I wouldn't mind refering to THAT as God, if calling it by that particular word keeps people happy.

As far as I am concerned, That Is It; NOTHING ELSE but man made rubbish.

Cheers

Re: # 223; tahmed

Sorry you lost me there again; YOUR concept of God is called "Deism"; it has nothing to do with ritualistic religion of any kind; please get the concepts clear in your head first.

If you are referring to being a DEIST or "free-lance monotheist" as someone else described it, feel free to practice it; just don't call it Islam; as I said before, the two are light years apart.

If you insist on labelling your God and other beliefs as Islam, then I am afraid you do have to incorporate the ritualistic elements etc, including the 'hate-verses' against the Kuffar etc, the clear sub-ordination of women, second rate status of Dhimmis, and the other details you selectively choose to ignore. You can't just selective quote different eras of Islamic history to suit YOUR needs either; you can't defend the "but-shiken" attitude of Ghaznavi by quoting selective parts of "Muslim Spain"; it is far from mono-lithic, do you know why? Because of the selective, personally suited interpretations of various times. The Qur'an remains un-changed as you guys keep going on, it is all there in BLACK AND WHITE. The shades of gray are a "figment of YOUR" imagination, because it seems to suit the order of the day, and not to say yourself personally.

On what critera do you interpret one verse one way and the other a different way to suit YOUR personal sensibilities? If God is as magnanimous as you make him out to be, he could have given us something more easily interpretable, don't you think? If you had read my interacts collectively, you would,'t have presented me with the same question you have already asked and I have answered; going back a few years, I saw some similar themes on Hamidm's previous interacts as well.

You, willingly or unwillingly are held appropriately accountable and answerable to what goes around in Islam's name; and start DEFENDING the Bad with the Good; it is ONE PACKAGE wether you like it or not!

You can't just bail out by saying "that is not MY Islam"!

Khuda Hafiz; back to work

sorry for double posting on #222/223.

nice couplets by the way in #221, and quite relevant to your point.

I think you make an interesting distinction between the "Religious God" and the "Philosophical god".

The "Religious God" is nothing but an enlarged image of a king - and so if you flatter him (by kow-towing five times a day, or by offering sacrifice, or building enormous mosques or churches dedicated to him) this king will perhaps do you a favor and change rules for you so you wont get a heart attack (e.g.) regardless of how much halwa you eat, or make you wealthy no matter how stupid you are.

What I am suggesting is that this "Religious God" is based not on the Quran but on a jahil culture. That it is the "Philosophical God" as you put it (and as I discussed in that earlier post I mentioned) that is consistent with the concept presented in the Quran.

akcheema bhai #221 starting with your last sentence first - I wish there were more "defenders of the faith" around.

Indeed - I started discussion religion on chowk many years ago specifically to see if the "defenders of the faith" had any substantive arguments to present that would result in my changing my understanding of the Quran. Back then there used to be some around. I soon determined that they were intellectually dishonest and will refuse to acknowledge even the simplest bit of common sense if it ran counter to their "mullah line". Only one is left among them - gentleman named urstruly - and i suggest you see his reaction (or lack thereof) when I challenge him with some idea.

On the rest of what you say - I really think you should reflect upon the concept of God as I presented it to you on the other board that i keep referring to, and give me your take on it. Otherwise we are merely going to be having a dialogue of the deaf.

akcheema bhai #221 starting with your last sentence first - I wish there were more "defenders of the faith" around.

Indeed - I started discussion religion on chowk many years ago specifically to see if the "defenders of the faith" had any substantive arguments to present that would result in my changing my understanding of the Quran. Back then there used to be some around. I soon determined that they were intellectually dishonest and will refuse to acknowledge even the simplest bit of common sense if it ran counter to their "mullah line". Only one is left among them - gentleman named urstruly - and i suggest you see his reaction (or lack thereof) when I challenge him with some idea.

On the rest of what you say - I really think you should reflect upon the concept of God as I presented it to you on the other board that i keep referring to, and give me your take on it. Otherwise we are merely going to be having a dialogue of the deaf.

Re: # 220; tahmed
It was not to change your personal relationship with the deity of your chosing/ancestory etc; I made it clear many times to all.

I have made references to this 'free will' concept so won't repeat it here either.

Like I said, my original objective was a mere intrigue; the concept came from (may sound silly) Dan Brown's books, especially the Da Vinci Code. I just (purely for personal interest) wanted to find any so-called covert messages within Islamic art/literature etc. To my surprise, it was all over the place!

Listen to Aziz Mian's Aadmi hai benazir:

"Vaa'iz yeh samajhta hai haram mein kuchh hai;
Hindu yeh samajhte hein sanam mein kuchh hai.

Donoan ko hai khush fehmi, donoan hi hein gum;
Hum to yeh samajhte hein ke hum mein kuchh hai"

and it goes on....
Read Ghalib:
"Eeman mujhe rokay hai, jo kheenche hai mujhe kufr;
Kaaba mere peechhay hai kaleesa mere aagay"

and " Khuda ke vaastay pardah na kaabay se uttha zaalim;
Kaheen aisaa na ho yaan bhi vohi kaafir sanam niklay"

Even Iqbal is not immune. I have already qouted Bulleh Shah on that board so won't say again; I am sure you can read.

Problem is this; all the so-called believers (more than 98%) only continue to worship the same deity as their immediate ancestors (in some shape or form). That alone is testament enough towards the futility of it all.
Other problem: We are used to seeing things around us that are designed/made by something/body etc. We cannot comprehend that our world could come into being without a "will" behind it. This argument, unfortunately, shoots itself in the foot from the start; the "being" that created complex things like us HAS TO BE EVEN MORE COMPLEX! How did HE/SHE come into being? That is where all our logics stop, why? because it is 'convenient'.

All religions, Abrahamic or otherwise, are man-made. WE created the God(s) in OUR image not the other way around.

What you, and others like Iqbal and other Muslim philosophers, do is try TO COMBINE THE ABRAHAMIC GOD WITH THE GOD OF THE PHILOSOPHERS (ancients); you come up with these incomprehensible concepts to stop/win the arguments; problem is THAT GOD is light years away from the concept of God presented by man-made religion. Unfortunately, when the lie is presented as this magnanimous, incomprehensible being, who could argue.

I have already commented on this god's limitations elsewhere so please read it, or go to my intro and click on the interact icon; then you can sift through it in no time.

I suggested to Eklavya as well; there are a couple of books by Karen Armstrong on the subject. "The History of God" and "The Battle for God". If you haven't read them already, please make the effort.

Like I said, feel free to contact me off-line; in a second all the "Defenders of the Faith" will be here and it is difficult to exchange any ideas as one gets side-tracked.

Cheers.

akcheema sahib: #219 nice (though of course i have something to say about it below). i have saved the poem in my newly created folder on Urdu Poetry.

I see the context is in terms of shortcomings of God, not mankind. And you also make the same point in #218 - i.e., if the environment is a mess, then that too is God's will.

This interpretation of Islam is in fact pervasive in Pakistan (i.e. everything is God's will). In my view this interpretation is driven not by the Quran but by a dysfunctional culture that discourages the individual from believing that he can make a difference. This is why I say this:

In the sentence you quoted, it says everything is due to God's will. But that sentence is not relevant to the fact there there is such a thing as human will as well. That is - God's will created human will in the first place.

And it is this human will whose importance is emphasized by what i consider to be the core message of the Quran - namely distinguish between right and wrong and to do the right thing (see Surah Baqarah, e.g., where it says that regardless of this if you believe in God, in the Judgement Day and do the right thing you have nothing to fear).

The huge contribution of the Chief Justice to Pakistan has been to demonstrate that one man who has the courage to stand by his convictions can indeed make a difference. His example inspired other judges, lawyers, civil society, and the political parties to all join hands to stand up for something higher than their own petty ambitions.

This is Islam in action - inspiring people to do the right thing. Not binding them down as slaves to the "ulema" or other charlatans or whining about the west conspiring against them or ranting about "muslim grievances" like the bearded hypocrites who have disgraced Islam.

One last thing on the last couple of lines"

Apni Pehchaan Ki Khaatir Hai Banaya Sub Ko;
Sub Ki Nazaron Say Magar Khud Ko Chup Rakha Hai

The Quran says that God created man to learn about His creation ("learn the names of his creation"). Not about God Himself, as the verse implies (who in fact can never be fully understood - and i already wrote a piece on this concept on the other board that i had addressed to you).
And God's creation is all around us to see - and today we can see 7.5 billion light years away, and also check it out at the sub-atomic level at the other extreme.

And so - this reinforces the above-mentioned core message - i.e. to use one's God given abilities to not just do the right thing, but indeed to extend the frontiers of science and human understanding of God's creation.

So - this "shikwa" doesnt make much sense either. And so my comfort with being a muslim in today's modern world remains unchanged. :-)

Re: # 214; tahmed

here is the whole "band" so you get the context:

Dil Peh Hairat Nai Ajab Rang Jama Rakha Hai;
Aik Uljhi Hui Tasveer Bana Rakha Hai
Kuch Samajh Mein Nahi Aata K Yeah Chakkar Kia Hai;
Khail Kia Tum Nai Azal Say Yeah Racha Rakha Hai
Rooh Ko Jism K Pingray Ka Bana Ker Qaidee;
Us Pay Phir Mout Ka Pehraa Bhi Bithaa Rakha Hai
Day K Tadbeer K Panchi Ko Uranay Tu Nai;
Daam-E-Tadbeer Mein Her Sumt Bicha Rakha Hai
Kar K Araish E Qounain Ki Barsoon Tu Nai;
Khatam Karne Ka Bhi Mansooba Bana Rakha Hai

La-Makaani Ka Bahr Haal Hai Dawa Bhi Tumhein;
Nahl-O-Akrab Ka Bhi Paighaam Suna Rakha Hai
Yeah Burai, Wo Bhalai, Yeh Jahannum, Wo Bahisht;
Is Ulat Phair Mein Farmao To Kia Rakha Hai
Jurm Aadam Nai Kiya Aur Saza Baiton Ko;
Adl O Insaaf Ka Mi'aar Bhi Kia Rakha Hai
Dai K Insaan Ko Dunya Mein Khilafat Apni;
Ik Tamasha Sa Zamanay Mein Bana Rakha Hai
Apni Pehchaan Ki Khaatir Hai Banaya Sub Ko;
Sub Ki Nazaron Say Magar Khud Ko Chup Rakha Hai

Re: # 217; tahmed bhai
"- given the mess mankind has made of the environment".


Qur'an[64:11] Nothing happens to you except in accordance with God's will.

akcheema #214 that verse certainly seems appropriate - given the mess mankind has made of the environment.

(my comment below was about the naee, btw. i mean, he could not have been a bigger charalatan - khalifa - than musharraf.)

#214 akcheema: But he could not have been a bigger khalifah than musharraf.

#213 Naqsh: Dont get angry at me for stating the obvious. Read the Quran instead and then talk about Islam to me.

Re: # 213 and 209;

The only 'Khalifah' I remember from a long time ago was the 'naaee' in our pind!

"day ke insaan ko duniya mein khilafat apni;
ik tamasha sa zamaane mein bana rakkha hai!"
(Naaz Khailvi)

Re: # 209

'caliphs have no real religious signiifance in islam!' -- the nost igonrant comment and the most untrue even by your standards!

the caliph --arabic is khalifa in its shortened form or, originally as used by hazrat abu bakr -- khalifatul Rasulallah--literally 'the vicegerent of the messenger of god [upon him be peace]' -- is the political AND spiritual head of the community of muslims.

little knowledge is a dangerous thing...